- #1
ensabah6
- 695
- 0
Both purport to make use of condense matter- models to model fundamental physics.
What are the differences and which seems more promising?
What are the differences and which seems more promising?
atyy said:I believe Wen would like emergent fermions, while Volovik wouldn't mind fundamental fermions. Neither is promising, though both are inspiring and worth studying. I think AdS/CFT is a working example for emergent gravity in some universes (not ours) that is very much in the spirit of condensed matter. So we have examples of emergent gravity (AdS/CFT) and emergent QED and QCD (Levin and Wen), but no examples of emergent chiral fermions (yet?).
ensabah6 said:I've wondered about the relevance of AdS/CFT to our universe, esp as a fundamental theory
Would it be possible to combine Wen's emergent QED QCD on a spin network lattice, with Bilson-Thompson braided to get emergent chiral fermions?
atyy said:He, he - I don't know - I'd publish it if I knew
ensabah6 said:Would it be possible to combine Wen's emergent QED QCD on a spin network lattice, with Bilson-Thompson braided to get emergent chiral fermions?
heinz said:It seems that this combination describes what Schiller is doing on http://www.motionmountain.net/research/ In his "strand" model/conjecture, he deduces emergent chiral fermions made of braided tangles. He uses the same trick as Bilson-Thompson to show that there are only three particle generations. But Schiller predicts no Higgs - hmm...
John86 said:That is your personal view i think Atvy, although you also know that the condensed matter physics field, is the most tested and confirmed perhaps field in physics. For me it makes sense because it ultimately also inhabits quantum mechanics as emergent. And thereby leaves out anything fundamental.
ensabah6 said:Wen offers emergent Higgs using a local bosonic theory.
Are neutrinos the only chiral fermions Wen is unable to account for?
John86 said:Yes that's interesting Wen says fundamental particles arise from the collective behaviour of bossons. This is wat Wen exactly says.
This paper uses a particular emergence approach: we
try to obtain everything from a local bosonic model. The
detail form of the bosonic model is not important. The
important issue is how the bosons (or the spins) are organized
in the ground state. It is shown that if bosons
organize into a string-net condensed state, then photons,
electrons and quarks can emerge naturally as collective
motions of the bosons.12–15 In this paper, we will find an
organization of bosons such that the collective motions
of bosons lead to gravitons.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0606/0606100v1.pdf
My idea is that Volovik goes a step further then Wen, But Wen digs deeper. Although if you read Volovik's Book "the universe in helium droplet" you get a really good idea what Volovik envisions. The book goes much deeper than his papers usualy
ensabah6 said:Both purport to make use of condense matter- models to model fundamental physics.
What are the differences and which seems more promising?
heinz said:Volovik is presenting a high-level analogy (nasty people would call him a crackpot) whereas Wen has some original, good and promising ideas.
ensabah6 said:So where does Group Field Theory fit in?
Oriti offers to model spin-networks on a fat graph that gives rise to a He3 like superfluid.
i.e arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607032
Crackpot?
heinz said:I said that Volovik's work was questionable - I have not read Oriti well enough to say something sensible about it.
The main difference between Volovik and Wen theories is their approach to understanding the nature of quantum materials. Volovik's theory, known as the "gravity analogy," uses concepts from cosmology to explain the behavior of quantum systems. Wen's theory, on the other hand, focuses on topological states and their emergence in quantum materials.
Due to their different approaches, Volovik and Wen theories make different predictions about the behavior of quantum materials. For example, Volovik's theory predicts the existence of exotic particles called analogs of black holes, while Wen's theory predicts the presence of exotic states at the boundaries of topological materials.
Currently, Wen's theory is more widely accepted in the scientific community. This is due to its success in explaining experimental observations and its ability to make accurate predictions. However, both theories are still actively studied and debated among scientists.
Despite their differences, there are some similarities between Volovik and Wen theories. Both theories aim to understand the behavior of quantum materials and make predictions about their properties. Additionally, they both incorporate concepts from different fields of physics, such as gravity and topology.
Volovik and Wen theories have both significantly contributed to our understanding of quantum materials. They have provided new insights and explanations for the behavior of these materials and have led to the discovery of new phenomena. Additionally, these theories have inspired further research and opened up new avenues for exploring the properties of quantum materials.